“G’day from Australia. I’m writing in light of last weekend’s historic anti-immigration March For Australia: the biggest mass nationalistic movement in a decade, and considerably more ideologically explicit and coherent.” — Journal Reader
Brief Update
One year—it has nearly been one year since The Journal of American Reform got off the ground, albeit quietly and steadily at first. By the grace of God, we hope to continue this progress, building on recent momentum and spurred on by the encouragement of our readers and supporters. We are already looking forward to the future, particularly what is to come in the new few months, including more explosive translation work. With that said, few things are as rewarding as seeing a message like this in our inbox:
“Thank you for your diligent research efforts on these topics.”
Even better was that this message was accompanied by a letter, valuable information for The Journal to share, if we were interested. It is now our very first “Letter to the Editor”, you might say, and we are happy to share it with the growing readership of this publication.
Nationalism is Making a Comeback
It is of great joy that a true nationalism is returning to the countries that need it most, those in Europe and her diaspora. Of course, as is evident from the title of this publication, America is the central and animating focus of The Journal, yet that does not mean that the political developments in other countries are of no interest to us—far from it. Developments that, if they can continue to grow, avoiding the many pitfalls of working outside the system (which deserves the most focus), may transition into full-fledged parties with legitimate interests, programs and donors. That seems to be on the horizon for Australia, at least, as we are beginning to see from the events of last week. The younger generations are poised to accelerate this counterrevolution.
The historic “March For Australia”, of course, is what we are talking about. This was brought to our attention early this week by a reader. With much fanfare, the rally looks to be a big success, though we will let others be the definitive judge of that. Native Australians, which is to say White Australians, are awakening from their decades-long slumber to the looming demographic crisis in their country. Sound familiar? But, with great courage, they are beginning to organize, politically, as a racial group, which has a right to assert it itself in their own homeland. For too long has the bloodless liberalism gripped the minds of men. Tens of thousands in Australia are saying no more. Tremendous.
After carefully reviewing the materials provided by this reader, we are happy to present them in this “Letter to the Editor”. We hope it will be the first of many such letters and would encourage others to do the same, if it is something you feel worthwhile. Not all at once, please.
Side note: before we turn to the letter, it will be important to identify a real error that invariably comes up when questions of race, nationality and blood are talked about today. These ideas, in themselves, are legitimate and only need to be circumscribed by Catholic morality and subordinated to higher, spiritual goods. Precision is everything on these issues. This error is one of radicalism, which is to say of placing too much value (not to be confused with proper value) on these natural goods, i.e. race, nation and blood. Given the prevailing error of our day, far from the exaggerated racism of previous times, is rather a deficiency in racial thinking and identity, particularly for the White races, there is no reason to belabor this point. It will suffice to recall the sublime teaching of Pope Pius XI in Mitt brennender Sorge (no. 8) that race is a “fundamental value of the human community”, which has a “necessary and honorable” function in temporal affairs, yet when raised above its standard value, to an idolatrous level, this “distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God… from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”
With that error addressed, simultaneously preempting some objections, we are now ready to present the substance of the “Letter to the Editor”, with only minor changes with the permission of the reader. This Aussie nationalist is to be applauded for his thoughtful writing and balanced style. His inclusion of links to enrich the letter is helpful, too. We cannot help but say it is a badge of honor to count an intelligent Catholic, like him, among our readership. Now, without further ado, The Journal of American Reform is pleased to present our very first “Letter to the Editor”!
Letter to the Editor
Dear American Reform,
G’day from Australia. I’m writing in light of last weekend’s historic anti-immigration March For Australia: the biggest mass nationalistic movement in a decade, and considerably more ideologically explicit and coherent.
I want to pass on two relevant quotes from an Australian Catholic clergyman on the topic of the White Australia Policy. I’m sitting on a lot of research on this topic, but unfortunately it’s still un-organised. Perhaps down the track I can share more. But for now, I hope you can do all Australian Catholic patriots a service and share these two clippings — while this topic is still fresh in the headlines!
Various Australian clergy weighed in on the topic of our racial immigration restriction policies throughout the years. Some archbishops did raise concerns about improper motivations or excesses. However, the White Australia Policy was never condemned.
In fact, it was explicitly affirmed multiple times by Australia’s most prominent Catholic apologist: the Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, MSC. He ran a nationally renowned Q&A series called Dr Rumble’s Question Box. This show was the go-to source for nuanced moral questions and apologetics. His gravitas and influence were preeminent: both within and without the Church. His works later were published in transcript, called Radio Replies, which still enjoy international popularity.
Also worth noting: he was consistently moderate in his opinions (on this topic, and related ones e.g. National Socialism, Fascism, Anti-Semitism and even The Split). Therefore, he could not be accused of either irrelevancy nor of being extreme.
He died in 1975 and was unhappy with Vatican II. Requiem eternam.
FIRST QUOTE — Catholic Freeman’s Journal (4.25.1935)
Summary: On the conflict of one’s freedom and necessity to migrate vs. the collective interests of the nation to refuse. [Historical Context]. Rev. Dr. Rumble concludes Catholics are justified in doing so, even for purely eugenic reasons.
Question: Is it just for a Catholic to subscribe to a policy of debarring the people of an over-crowded land from entering his, if his is sparsely populated?
ANSWER — If an over-populated country wished to enter another in order to conquer it, a Catholic could certainly subscribe to a policy of resistance, if it be merely a question of his own country lacking population. Thus the lack of population in Australia does not give any moral right to a densely populated country like Japan to invade Australia in a war of expansion and conquest, depriving us of control.
But may we justly debar individuals of other races from entering Australia to dwell in the land subject to our legislation? We certainly have the right to safeguard the purity of our race as far as possible. Therefore, except in the case of extreme necessity, we may justly support a white Australia policy. And there is no country yet in extreme necessity through over-population. Should it become absolutely impossible for a dense population to live within its restricted boundaries, despite all the efforts of internal economic administration, then some of the people would have to emigrate. In this case they should choose countries willing to admit them. If all doors are closed against them, they must have recourse to diplomatic action by which some provision would almost certainly be made for them. But this stage has not arrived yet. At present, despite its sparse population, Catholics are justified in supporting a policy of exclusion of alien races (emphasis added).
SECOND QUOTE — The Catholic Weekly (1.18.1951)
Summary: Rev. Dr. Rumble discusses controversies over the proper motivations for our racial exclusion policies, featuring Archbishop Duhig and Immigration Minister Calwell. He concludes that both economic and eugenic grounds are legitimate. He quotes the following study (pg. 58).
Question: “The ‘White Australia Policy’ was racial in the beginning,” said Mr. Cadwell, “and it will remain racial to the end.”
ANSWER — It was both economic and racial. Australians feared an in-flux of people of lower standards of life who would compete seriously with Australian workers and compel them also to accept lower wages. They also feared social dangers arising from racial differences, and still greater problems arising from possible intermarriage with all the undesirable consequences of having an ever-increasing half-caste element to be provided for. Both those were very real problems, to be avoided if at at all possible. (emphasis added).
Question: How does the White Australia Policy square with Catholic principles?
ANSWER — The “Code of International Ethics,” published in 1938, by the Catholic “International Union of Social Studies,” says when dealing with the subject of migration that an individual country is justified in excluding foreign peoples of a lower standard of life and culture, or so racially different that they cannot be assimilated. The White Australia Policy is, therefore, justified on principle. But the application of the principle in practice requires that other provision is possible for peoples affected by it, if they have not enough territory for the needs of their population. (emphasis added).
Question: Mr. Calwell accused Dr. Duhig, Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, of attempting to break down the White Australia Policy by advocating a quota system.
ANSWER — It is one thing to maintain that we have the right to enforce a White Australia Policy; but the degree in which we choose to exercise that right is another thing altogether. Though we have the right, we are not obliged to insist rigidly upon it. And there is room for differences of judgment as to the wiser course of action in present circumstances. Mr. Calwell is entitled to believe that any concessions at all will be but the thin end of a wedge leading to a complete breakdown of a White Australia. Archbishop Duhig is also quite entitled to hold that a quota system of Asiatic immigration could be kept stable by strict administration, that it would promote friendlier relations between ourselves and the teeming multitudes to the North, and be some sort of safeguard against our becoming completely under Asiatic domination by invasion, whether we like it or not. The decision here is one of human prudence which does not involve any compromise of Catholic principles dealing with the subject. (emphasis added).
Despite Archbishpo Duhig’s soft stance above, he was ironically an ardent and vocal supporter of Il Duce; having been received by him several times.
Racial immigration restriction is uniquely woven into the story of Australia: it was our first piece of legislation passed by parliament after federation. And so too were Catholics uniquely woven into the complicated story that lead to its demise in the 1970s.
That topic is greatly nuanced, and deserves proper attention one day. Lack of nuance has been abused by some in the Australian Nationalists to unfairly place the blame on the Church herself, despite Catholics being present on either side of “the Split”.
Thank you for your diligent research efforts on these topics.
God bless,
an Australian traditional Catholic and Patriot
CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!
As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (edits) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.
Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.
In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:
X: @AmericanReform_
Telegram: @American_Reform